Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. As for the six pending merits cases, three were set for oral argument in December, the Solicitor General filed a motion for divided argument in one, and an opening merits brief was filed. Two new petitions and a waiver of the right to respond to a petition were also filed. Read on for the details.
Activity in Merits Cases
In Thryv Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, the case was set for argument on Monday, December 9, and the Solicitor General filed a motion for divided argument.
Maine Community Health Options v. United States and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company v. United States were also set for argument in December on Tuesday, December 10.
In Romag Fasteners , Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., the petitioner filed its opening merits brief stating that “[t]he Lanham Act does not require a showing of willfulness as a prerequisite to awards of infringers’ profits under section 1117(a).” Romag Fasteners also filed the joint appendix.
Activity in Petitions Cases
Two new petitions were filed this week.
In Winston-Salem Industries for the Blind v. PDS Consultants, the petitioner asked the Court to review:
1. “Whether the Tucker Act’s grant of bid protest jurisdiction to the Court of Federal Claims extends to suits that challenge the lawfulness of a federal agency’s acquisition policies and practices, and their underlying statutory foundation, outside the context of a specific solicitation regarding, or the award of, a government contract;” and
2. “Whether Congress intended 38 U.S.C. § 8127(d)’s competitive-bidding preference for providers owned and controlled by veterans to trump the mandatory requirements of JWOD that dictate that agencies must acquire goods and services in the first instance using the AbilityOne Procurement List.”
In Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, the petitioner asked the Court to review:
“Whether the inter partes review proceedings brought by private respondents against the University of Minnesota in this case are barred by sovereign immunity.”
No new replies to cert petitions were filed this week.
The Supreme Court did not grant any cert petitions.
The Court likewise did not deny any cert petitions.